"Whatever else it is it's a sad, sad story for him"

There was a striking statement from Andrew Marr this morning, during his run-through of the newspaper front pages:

And finally the Mail on Sunday, the interview there with Jo Cox's widower - a very sad story actually, given what that man has gone through. Whatever else it is it's a sad, sad story for him. 

That echoes what he said last week, when he again called it "a sad story".

This was followed by an even more striking gesture: His paper review chose not to discuss the Mail on Sunday story.

Brendan Cox has been interviewed twice by The Andrew Marr Show. I suspect that Andrew & Co. have developed protective feelings towards him and that they would say that they were just being "nice and friendly and human" by drawing a veil of sympathy over his fall from grace. 

Martine Croxall

Last night's The Papers on the BBC News Channel, presented by Martine Croxall, were also notable for their treatment of this story. They did discuss it. In the first paper review, Martine began by saying, "Oh right. Here we go. Mail on Sunday", looking and sounding as if she was talking about this story with a heavy heart. And in the second paper review, she said, "Let's start with the Mail on Sunday, and Brendan Cox" and then she sighed. Both times she immediately took issue with the Mail on Sunday:

Oh right. Here we go. Mail on Sunday. '"Yes, I was a sex pest" confesses Jo Cox's husband'. This is Brendan Cox, "sensationally admitting"...This is not quite what he admitted if we read the quotes...

Let's start with the Mail on Sunday, and Brendan Cox. (Sighs). We have to take issue though, straightaway, with the headline. "Yes, I was a sex pest, confesses Jo Cox's husband". He didn't say that in this article.

She also said that of Brendan Cox's the phrase "years later" to describe now as compared to then - when the alleged incidents took place - even though they are alleged to have occurred in 2015 (2-3 years ago), and read out in full the Jo Cox Foundation's tribute to Brendan before saying, "So he's taking a step back because he does not want this [the 'inappropriate behaviour'] to get in the way of all of that [the Jo Cox Foundation's good work]".

I don't doubt that she was trying to be 'nice and friendly and human' too towards someone she feels sympathetic towards.

Of course, as you'll know, plenty of others feel very little sympathy for Brendan Cox. You only have to read the comments under the Mail on Sunday article to know that.

And the criticisms of Andrew Marr and his editor are already coming in, some measured in tone -

Hi @RobBurl I’m curious to know why #marr felt the need to express sympathy for Brendan Cox considering he’s only got himself to blame. No one else.

Thought @RobBurl perhaps it cld be useful to suggest to editor of @newswatchbbc to interview the editor of #Marr about when why and how stories are selected to be covered or not on newspaper reviews (for legit editorial or legal reasons doubtless) but just help deflect critics. [Ed - For those who don't already know, Rob Burley is also the editor of BBC Newswatch!]

- others less so:

Defender of sexual abuse, and you’re the editor! Shame on you!  #partofthecoverup

Rob is yet to reply.

Update: Rob has replied:

"We don't dictate to the reviewers which stories they must do. They chose".

That's fair enough, and answers that charge:

MrMacphisto #JRM4PM: He’s admitted it and resigned since last weekend, which I think is newsworthy. Or am I missing something? Tony Young treatment was rather different I recall.
Rob Burley: It was in the news and we reported the front page. The reviewers didn't chose the story. That's it.

And one of the paper reviewers, the Sunday Express's Camilla Tominey, has backed Rob up:

As a reviewer I can confirm we didn't choose it - we felt it had been done last week and that there were other stories more relevant to the public. 

As to Mr. Marr's overt expressions of sympathy for Brendan Cox, it will be interesting to read Rob's take on that too.

Further Update: Actually, Andrew Marr himself has saved Rob the need and responded first:

It's admirable that Andrew has responded to viewers' concerns (just like his editor), though it must be said that the comments (in response to his response) could be going a lot better for him (e.g. '"Sorry if taken the wrong way"= it's your fault for not understanding. Unbelievable' and 'Still no condemnation of his behaviour!').

Further Further Update: On things go...